Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 2 · Section 55 – Section 57
Caunterbury.
I know not to what purpose you hauehave written all this fond matter, except it be, that you would the world should know how ignorant you be in philosophy, which hauehave not learned so much, as to know the diuersity betwene the vi. kindes of mornings, generation, corruption, augmentation, diminution, alteration, and mouing from place to place. Wherof the iiii. last be from accidents to accidents, and the two first from substance to substance. So that all mutation is not in accidents, and the corruption of accidents to be the generation of new accidents, as you vnlearnedly imagine, both of that, and of materia prima, which neuer was no such thing in deede, but by imagination.
But bicause you beare me in hand, that I beare the papistes wrong in hand, that they affirme wormes to be ingendred of accidents, I shall reherse their owne wordes, that the readers may know your ignorance herein, or els how loud a lye you make willingly. Ex speciebus sacramentalibus (say they) generantur vermes, siputre fiant. Of the sacramentall formes, if they be rotten, be gendred wormes. But it is no poynt of true meaning men, now to deny that euer they sayd any such things, as they hauehave taught in their scholes these foure or fiue hundred yeares, as their owne books do playnly testefy. And be these Papistes to be credited, which hauehave taught vntruely so many yeares, and now when they be pressed with all, goe cleane from it, and say they neuer sayd so, but he wrong borne in hand.
And bicause Smith denieth here the same that you doe, that wormes be ingendred of the accidents in the sacrament, let him helpe you to aunswere this matter. And for as much as he sayth that when the host reserued beginneth to moule and to putrify,Smith. and should ingender wormes, then an other substance succeedeth it, of which such thinges are made, let him tell what substaunce that is which succedeth, and whereof that substance is made.
But to returne to you agayne, such philosophy as you make here, learned I neuer in Aristotle, Plato, nor Pliny, nor I trow none such to bee found in any that euer wrote. But as you delight all in singularity, and hauehave made strange diuinity, so must you inuēt as strange philosophy. For who euer heard the Terminus a quo is chaunged, or Terminus ad quem? And whatsoeuer semeth to you (as commonly it seemeth to you that seemeth to no man els) yet it seemeth to no man els that euer was learned, that accidēts be properly changed, but that the substaunces or subiectes be chaunged from accidence to accidence.
And it is the simplest reason that euer was made, that the accidentes moule and sower, because the substaunce remayneth, so as mouled bread is called bread, and sower wine is called wine. For so is colde water and hoat water both, called water. And yet it is the water that is now hoate now colde, and not the accidentes. For neyther can hote be colde nor colde be hoat, nor heat go into coldnes, nor coldnes into heat, but the subiect that receiueth them, is now hoat, now cold by alteration, as yron that is now colde, is soone made hoat, but coldnes can neuer be hotenes by no arte nor science, forasmuch as they be contrary qualities. And likewise purenes cā not moul, nor sweetnes cannot be sower, but wine that is sweet may turn into sower wine, & bread that is pure may be chaunged into mouly bread. But the more you striue in the matters of philosophy, the more appeareth your ignoraunce therein, euen as it did before in the matters of our fayth. And who can condemne your doctrine more clearely then your owne Vlpian doth, as you do here alleadge him? that in vineger remayneth in manner the same substaunce that was in the wine, wherof it must folow, that when the sacramentall wine is turned into vineger, there must be a substaunce remaining, which is in manner the same with the substaunce of the vineger. The sixt absurdity.
Sixtly, that substaunce is norished without substance, by accidents onelyonly, if it chaunce any Catte, Mouse, Dogge, or other thing, to eate the Sacramentall bread.
These inconueniences and absurdities do follow of the fond papistical transubstantiation, with a number of other errours, as euill or worsse then these, whereunto they be neuer able to aunswere, as many of them hauehave confessed themselues.
And it is wonder to see, how in many of the foresayd thinges, they vary among themselues. Where as the other doctrine of the scripture and of the old catholick church, but not of the lately corrupted Romish church is plaine and easy, as well to be vnderstanded, as to aunswere to all the aforesayd questions, without any absurdity or inconuenience folowing thereof, so that euerye aunswere shall agree with gods word, with the olde church, and also with all reason and true philosophy.
For as touching the first poynt, what is broken, what is eaten, what drunkē and what chawen in this sacrament, it is easy to aunswere. The bread and wine, as S. Paule sayth: The bread which we breake.
And as concerning the second and third poyntes, neither is the substaunce of bread and wine without their proper accidents, nor their accidentes hange alone in the ayre without any substance, but according to all learning, the substaunce of the bread and wine reserue their owne accidents and the accidents do rest in their owne substaunces.
And also as concerning the fourth poynt, there is no place left voyd after consecration (as the Papistes dreame) but bread and wine fulfill their place as they did before.
And as touching the fift poynt (whereof the wormes or mouling is ingendred, and wherof the vineger commeth) the aunswere is easy to make (according to all learning and experience) that they come according to the course of nature, of the substance of the bread and wine, to long kept, and not of the accidentes alone, as the Papistes do fondly phantasy.
And likewise the substances of bread and wine, do feed and nourish the body of them that eat the same, and not onelyonly the accidents.
In these answeres is no absurdity nor inconuenience, nothing spoken either contrary to holy scripture, or to naturall reason, Philosophy, or experience, or agaynst any old auncient author, or the primitiue or catholicke church, but onelyonly agaynst the malignant and Papisticall church of Rome. Where as on the other side, that cursed synagog of Antichrist, hath defyned and determined in this matter, many thinges contrary to Christes words, contrary to the old catholick church, and the holy martirs and doctors of the same, and contrary to all naturall reason, learning, and philosophy.
And the final end of al this Antichristes doctrine is none other, but by subtilty and craft, to bring christen people from the true honoring of Christ, vntounto the greatest idolatry, that euer was in this world deuise: as by Gods grace shal be plainly set forth hereafter.
Winchester.
It hath vene heard without fables of certaine men that hauehave liued and bene norished with sauors onelyonly. And in gold and certayne precious stones, that they geue a kinde of nurriture to an other substance, without diminution of their substance, experience hath shewed it so, and therefore the principle or maxime that this author gathereth hath no such absurdity in it, as he noteth, to say that substaunce is nourished without substance. But when vermin by chaunce happen to deuour any host, as I am sure they cannot violate Christes most precious body, so what effect foloweth of the rest, what néedeth it to be discussed? If it nourisheth, then doth that effect remaine, although the substaunce be not there. If eueryevery nurriture must néedes bee of substaunce, then would those that discusse those chances say the substaunce to returne, but hell gates shall not make me speake agaynst my fayth. And if I be asked the question, whether the visible matter of the sacrament nourish. I will answere, yea Ergo sayth he, there is substaunce, I deny it. He shall now from the effect to the cause argue by physicke, I shall disproue the conclusion by the authority of faith, who is it most méet should yeld to other? And if in nature many things be in experience contrary to the generall rules, why may not one singular condition be in this visible matter of the sacrament, that the onelyonly substaunce being chaunged, all other partes, properties and effectes may remayne? Is it an absurdity for a mayde to hauehave a child, because it is against the rules of nature? Is it an absurdity the world to be made of nothing, because the philosopher sayth: Of nothing commeth nothing? The principle of nature is that whatsoeuer hath a beginning, hath an end, and yet it is no absurditye to beléeue our soules to hauehave a beginning without end, and to be immortall. Wherefore to conclude this matter, it is a great absurdity in this author, to note that for an absurdity in our fayth, which repugneth onelyonly to the principles of phylosophy, or reasō, when that is onelyonly to be accounted for an absurdity, that should repugne to the scripture and gods will, which is the standerd to try the rule of our fayth. Howsoeuer reason or Phylosophy be offended it forceth not, so gods teaching be embraced and persuaded in fayth, which néedeth no such plaisters and salues as this author hath deuised, to make a sore where none is, and to corrupt that is whole.
Caunterbury.
MEn may here see, what fayned fables be sought out, to defend your errors and ignorance, which is how so manifest, that it appeareth you neuer read, or els hauehave forgotten, the very principles, and diffinitions of Philosophy. Of which this is one, that nutrition is a conuertion of substance into substance, that is to say, of the meate into the substance of the thing that is fedde. An other is thus Ex eisdem sunt & nutriuntur omnia. All thinges be nourished of thinges like themselues. And so I graunt you, that a man made of sauoures, and a man made of the vertue of gold and precious stones, may be nourished by the same, bicause he is made of the same. And yet it may be, that some certayne sauor or the vertue of some precious stone, may increase or continue some humor, wherof a man may be nourished, as we read of some men or certayne people that hauehave liued no small time by the sauonr of apples.
But still in your booke you crye fayth, fayth, and catholike fayth, when you teach but your owne inuentions, cleane contrary to the true catholike fayth and expresse worde of God. And in all your arguments here you commit the greatest vice that can be in reasoning, called Petitio principij, taking that thing which is chiefly in controuersy, to be a principle to induce your conclusion: Fayth, fayth say you: where is no fayth, but your bare faining. I hauehave disproued your fayth by gods word, by the vniuersall consent of all Christendome a M. yeares togither, and you crye out still, fayth fayth, which is not the fayth of Christ, but of Antichrist. Let christen men now iudge, who should yeld to other. If you had proued your doctrine by fayth, founded vponupon Gods word, I would condescend vntounto you that it is no absurdity that accidents remayne when the substance is gone. But gods word is clearly agaynst you, not onelyonly in your doctrine of transubstantiation, but also in the doctrine of the reall presence, of the eating and drinking, and of the sacrifices of Christes flesh and bloud.